His policy, as it is stated on that page is to develop green energy. That's nice, but accomplishes nothing. Its like saying your policy is to develop cold fusion and limitless energy. It has no basis in reality.

I see you're using the Fox News tactic of planting a false premise, and then tearing-apart the premise-as-fact.

Obama has a comprehensive energy policy, which he's stated hundreds of times, and no, it's not just "develop green energy", nor does any of it have "no basis in reality" (which is an effette-douchebag way of merely saying "unrealistic", so that to other effette-douchebags, you appear knowledgeable). People who have no energy policy include Dubya - "just keep driving your SUVs or the terrorists have won", and Palin - "drill, baby, drill".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortfeasor 335xi

What is Obama's fault is his trying to let them expire and raise taxes during a recession. Obama keeps trying to run headlong over the higher taxes cliff because he's either ignorant of history or too pigheadedly dogmatic in his leftist views to accept it.

False Premise, The Sequel. Proof that many Americans are gullible, ignorant, and easily spooked. Resetting the marginal rate of the top 5% of wage-earners to pre-Bush levels is not in any way doing what you capital-gains whores are trying to scare everyone into believing. For those with a net income of $250,001, that $1 will have 4 cents more taken out. Admit it - you're trying to scam the American public for your self-interests.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tortfeasor 335xi

And lets not pretend that its the Republicans fault that we are at an impasse on debt talks. Republicans and Democrats were well on their way to a deal before El Heffe Obama stepped in, requiring tax increases.

Agreed, let's not pretend it's the republican's fault - let's outright accept it's the republican's fault. Who the hell else could possibly be to blame? The administration has offered proposal after proposal, and they've all been shot down by the same political opportunists that have shutdown the govt in Minnesota and caused riots in Wisconsin. They won't accept removing tax loopholes for special-interests and big oil corporations, but every other time, that's exactly what they say they want to do.

I see you're using the Fox News tactic of planting a false premise, and then tearing-apart the premise-as-fact.

Obama has a comprehensive energy policy, which he's stated hundreds of times, and no, it's not just "develop green energy", nor does any of it have "no basis in reality" (which is an effette-douchebag way of merely saying "unrealistic", so that to other effette-douchebags, you appear knowledgeable). People who have no energy policy include Dubya - "just keep driving your SUVs or the terrorists have won", and Palin - "drill, baby, drill".

I see you're using the (not going to single out a particular group) tactic of making negative generalized statements of the opposition to prop up your side and make Obama's "energy policy", of which you did not provide any details, seem adequate.

If he's stated it hundreds of times, it should be pretty easy to find. Please share it with us, in all of it's electric car glory. And be sure to include details of his recent affection (if you call simply mentioning it at all "affection") with natural gas now that it's time for him to get elected again.

On an unrelated note, I think hearing a 50+ year old (or was it 40+?) grown man use the word "douchebag" is a first for me.

If he's stated it hundreds of times, it should be pretty easy to find. Please share it with us

Why would ScotchAndCigar repost the link to Obama's energy policy, when the link is already in one of Tortfeasor 335xi's posts on the last page, and one of my posts on the page before?

What is worse, why doesn't someone like you, who claims to be an oil services executive big-wig, ALREADY know where to find Obama's energy policy? Oh that's right, you would rather bitch and moan cluelessly in the dark than actually READ Obama's energy policy.

For the linkie-clickie disabled, here is the overview:

BLUEPRINT FOR A SECURE ENERGY FUTURE

Develop and Secure America’s Energy Supplies
 Expand Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and
Production
 Lead the World Towards Safer, Cleaner, and More Secure Energy Supplies

Provide Consumers with Choices to Reduce Costs and Save Energy
 Reduce Consumer Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks
 Cut Energy Bills with More Efficient Homes and Buildings

Innovate Our Way to a Clean Energy Future
 Harness America’s Clean Energy Potential
 Win the future through Clean Energy Research and Development
 Lead by Example: The Federal Government and Clean Energy

His policy, as it is stated on that page is to develop green energy. That's nice, but accomplishes nothing.

First you lie and say Obama has NO energy policy. Then when caught red-handed, you lie again and say Obama's policy is just to develop green energy. Why do you lie about stuff that is so easy to catch you red-handed lying about?

Develop and Secure America’s Energy Supplies
 Expand Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and
Production
 Lead the World Towards Safer, Cleaner, and More Secure Energy Supplies

Provide Consumers with Choices to Reduce Costs and Save Energy
 Reduce Consumer Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks
 Cut Energy Bills with More Efficient Homes and Buildings

Innovate Our Way to a Clean Energy Future
 Harness America’s Clean Energy Potential
 Win the future through Clean Energy Research and Development
 Lead by Example: The Federal Government and Clean Energy

It's like you didn't even bother drilling down into the policy docs on the link I gave you. There are PAGES AND PAGES of details available on his oil and gas policies. Here is just a small, tiny sample of an OVERVIEW of some of his policies:

DEVELOP AND SECURE AMERICA’S ENERGY SUPPLIES
Expand Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Natural Gas Development and Production
“All these actions can increase domestic oil production in the short and medium term. But let’s be clear – it is not a long-term solution.”
President Obama, March 11, 2010
The Challenge
America’s oil and natural gas supplies are critical components of our Nation’s energy portfolio. Their development enhances our energy security and fuels our Nation’s economy. Recognizing that America’s oil supplies are limited, we must develop our domestic resources safely, responsibly, and efficiently, while taking steps that will ultimately lessen our reliance on oil and help us move towards a clean energy economy.
Over the last two years, domestic oil and natural gas production has increased. In 2010, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003, and total U.S. natural gas production reached its highest level in more than 30 years. Much of this increase has the been the result of growing natural gas and oil production from shale formations as a result of recent technological advances. These resources, when developed with appropriate safeguards to protect public health, will play a critical role in domestic energy production in the coming decades.
America’s public lands and Federal waters provide resources that are critical to the nation’s energy security. To encourage robust exploration and development of the nation’s resources, the Administration has offered millions of acres of public land and Federal waters for oil and gas leasing over the last two years. Oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf increased more than a third – from 446 million barrels in 2008 to more than 600 million barrels of estimated production in 2010. Responsible oil production from onshore public lands also increased over the past year – from 109 million barrels in 2009 to 114 million barrels in 2010. These increases are occurring at the same time that oil imports are decreasing; for the first time in a decade, imports accounted for less than half of what we consumed.
Source: EIA

Of course the Deepwater Horizon oil spill served as a reminder that we must develop our domestic energy resources both safely and responsibly. Eleven men died and Americans watched as nearly five million barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. Subsequent reviews exposed significant weaknesses in the regulatory process and an industry unduly complacent about the safety of offshore oil and gas development. The tragedy underscored the need for exploration and production to proceed with the utmost consideration for achieving the world’s highest standards for safe and responsible production.
Progress to Date  Raising the Bar for Safety: In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama Administration has launched the most aggressive and comprehensive reforms to offshore oil and gas regulation and oversight in U.S. history. The reforms, which strengthen requirements for everything from well design and workplace safety to corporate accountability, are helping to ensure that the U.S. can safely and responsibly expand development of its offshore energy resources. These unprecedented reforms set standards and certification protocols for well design, testing, and control equipment and establish rigorous performance standards to reduce workplace error and require operators to maintain comprehensive safety and environmental management programs. Already, the Administration has launched commonsense requirements to improve safety, including directing deepwater operators to demonstrate that they have the capability to contain a sub-sea discharge like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Since these important new standards were put into place, the Department of the Interior has continued to issue shallow water permits – and the pace of deepwater permitting has escalated now that operators have begun successfully demonstrating containment capability.  Ensuring Efficiency and Integrity of Oversight: The Administration is reforming and strengthening offshore energy oversight by re-organizing the former Minerals Management Service into three separate agencies to eliminate conflicts, restore integrity by separating the functions of managing development of the Nation’s offshore resources: enforcing safety and environmental standards, and collecting revenues. Upon completion of the re-organization, the three separate agencies will include:
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), which has already been established and is responsible for collecting royalties, rents, and other revenue; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which will be responsible for managing development of the nation’s offshore resources, including oil, gas and renewable resources and;
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), which will independently and rigorously enforce safety and environmental regulations. To foster a culture of safety and rigor, DOI is recruiting new expertise – including inspectors, engineers, and scientists – and

Moving Forward
 Continuing to Ensure the “Gold Standard” for Safe and Responsible Oil and Gas Development: The Administration will continue to review the existing regulatory structures governing both onshore and offshore oil and gas development and identify potential efficiencies in those processes and any crucial gaps that pose safety or environmental risks.
 Providing Incentives to Spur Efficient Oil and Gas Development: The President recently directed the Department of Interior to determine the acreage of public lands (onshore and offshore) that have been leased to oil and gas companies and remain undeveloped. More than 70 percent of the tens of millions of offshore acres under lease are inactive—including almost 24 million inactive leased acres in the Gulf of Mexico, where an estimated 11.6 billion barrels of oil and 59.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas of technically recoverable resources are going unused. Onshore, about 57 percent of leased acres – almost 22 million acres in total – are neither being explored nor developed.

The American taxpayer – owners of our Nation’s public lands – have a right to expect that companies given access to public lands for oil and gas development will develop the resources efficiently or step aside to allow other companies to do so. The Administration is evaluating potential changes to elements of the leasing process that will encourage timely development. These potential changes include:
Using Shorter Lease Terms to Encourage Rapid Development: Adopting shorter lease terms, particularly onshore, would provide industry with a built-in incentive to develop leases more rapidly. Adopting this approach would also trigger the earlier release of non-producing leases, making them available to other companies who may be more willing or able to invest in their development. Offshore, the Administration has already implemented adjustments to lease terms for shallower waters. The terms of onshore leases, which currently are issued for standard 10-year terms, are constrained by a nearly century-old statute.
Rewarding Rapid Development with Lease Extensions. The Administration is taking a new approach to lease-extensions that rewards diligence by tying extensions more directly to lessee investment in exploration in development. For offshore leases, DOI has already begun to implement this new approach—for example, by requiring the spudding of a well before a lease extension is granted. DOI plans to build on recent reforms for both offshore and onshore leasing, so that when companies approach lease deadlines or apply for extensions, their record of demonstrating diligent exploration and development will help determine whether they should be able to continue using their leases, or whether those leases would be better utilized by others.
Rewarding Rapid Development through Rental Payments and Graduated Royalties: Although the price of oil and gas provides the primary financial incentive for current leaseholders to move forward in diligently investing in their leases, different fee and royalty structures may promote more expedited development. For example, Texas has used a graduated royalty rate system to provide developers with a discounted royalty rate if production occurs in the earlier years of a lease. The FY 2012 Budget proposes initial steps to encourage more rapid development.
 Developing Region-Specific Strategies to Facilitate Responsible Development: The Administration will continue to evaluate the feasibility of oil and gas development in frontier areas and develop appropriate strategies to facilitate responsible development in those areas identified as having great potential for domestic oil and gas production. Also, the Administration will integrate feasibility evaluations into the longer term Coast and Marine Spatial Planning process being undertaken as part of the National Ocean Policy.
Alaska – Onshore and Offshore Development: Facilitating responsible development in Alaska poses unique challenges, given that many areas of Alaska are frontier areas where less is known about the scope of economically recoverable oil and gas resources, the potential environmental and public health impacts of production, and exploration and development can be more difficult given the often-harsh conditions of the area. As a result, planning and exploration activities can take longer than in other areas of the U.S., making
13
the above incentives and other changes potentially inappropriate for Alaska. The Administration remains committed, however, to facilitating development in this region, which will require coordination across the Federal government. Accordingly, the Administration is creating a high-level, cross-agency team to access opportunities to coordinate and facilitate a more efficient offshore permitting process in Alaska, while ensuring that safety, health, and environmental standards are fully met.
Mid- and South Atlantic – Offshore Development: Ensuring that development takes place in the right ways and the right places is critical to the success of both renewable and conventional energy strategies. DOI is currently conducting environmental analysis on potential seismic testing in the Mid and South Atlantic planning areas, which would help determine the scope of potential recoverable resources in this region.
 Encouraging Responsible Development Practices for Natural Gas: Recent technology and operational improvements in extracting natural gas resources, particularly shale gas, have increased gas drilling activities nationally and led to significantly higher natural gas production estimates for decades to come. In order to take full advantage of this important domestic energy resource, we must proactively address concerns that have been raised regarding potential negative impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) practices. That is why the Administration is taking steps to address these concerns and ensure that natural gas production proceeds in a safe and responsible manner. Initiatives supported by the Administration include:
Disclosure of Fracking Chemicals: The Administration is calling on industry to be more transparent about the use of fracking chemicals.
Leading by Example: In April, DOI will hold a series of regional public meetings to discuss the potential for expanding shale gas production on Federal lands. These events will provide a forum to develop a framework for responsible production on public lands.
Research: The Federal government will conduct research to examine the impacts of fracking on water resources. At Congress’ direction, EPA will continue with its study of fracturing impacts on drinking water and surface water, and DOE will likewise sponsor research on these issues.
Setting the Bar for Safety and Responsibility: To provide recommendations from a range of independent experts, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the EPA Administrator and Secretary of Interior, should task the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) with establishing a subcommittee to examine fracking issues. The subcommittee will be supported by DOE, EPA and DOI, and its membership will extend beyond SEAB members to include leaders from industry, the environmental community, and states. The subcommittee will work to identify, within 90 days, any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking and to develop, within six months, consensus recommended advice to the agencies on practices for shale extraction to ensure the protection of public health and the environment.
14
Offering Technical Assistance to State Regulators: States exercise oversight of oil and gas drilling using delegated authority under Federal environmental laws and additional authorities under state law. Some have made more progress than others on enhancing protections to deal with the challenges of fracking. DOE and EPA are establishing a mechanism to provide technical assistance to states to assess the adequacy of existing state regulations. EPA will continue to perform a strong backstop role under Federal environmental laws and will take actions, as necessary, to protect public health and the environment.
Progress to Date
 Reducing Wasteful Use of Fossil Fuels: At the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh and the APEC Leaders Meeting in Yokohma, President Obama and the leaders of the world’s largest economies committed to phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. And although there is still much to do to implement this commitment, some of the most significant subsidizers have begun to take steps that could help moderate the growth in world oil consumption. For example, following this commitment a number of major economies, including China, India, and Mexico, instituted new pricing policies that will reduce the rate at which their oil consumption increases.
 Expanding Natural Gas Production Worldwide: Although oil is used mostly for transportation in the U.S., this is not always the case in other countries. In developing economies especially, a lack of indigenous fuel or infrastructure often means that oil is used to generate electricity and fuel industrial processes. Following the development in the U.S. of new techniques for recovering shale gas, the State Department initiated the Global Shale Gas Initiative which assesses a country’s potential for shale gas production and assists governments in establishing the commercial arrangements and safety and environmental regulations that permit the beneficial development of this resource. The Energy Department is leading an Unconventional Gas Census for the Asia Pacific at the request of APEC energy ministers. These programs benefit both developing countries and the U.S. by moderating oil demand growth in these rapidly growing economies and facilitating fuel-switching to cleaner natural gas.

etc, etc, etc. You are just making yourself look like a lying stoolie.

The Republicans fabricated this fake Debt Ceiling crisis out of thin air. There is no requirement for any other talks just to pass an increase in the debt ceiling.

This was an ENTIRELY REPUBLICAN decision to tie non-time critical legislation to the time-critical Debt Ceiling vote.

Obama called on Republicans to pass a clean Debt Ceiling bill. The Republicans UNILATERALLY decided to go to war instead. Somehow you blame Obama for Republicans making the unilateral decision to go to war, instead of passing a clean bill? Seriously?

But, given the recent changes and the further shift to come in congress, it's all just dream state stuff now. nobama's only way forward is to continue to try his craven backdoor approach using admin law and regulation to defeat the will of the people.

And coming soon to a congress near you...de-funding of selected activist agencies followed by a blizzard of investigations throughout any second term. How many years before his hair turns completely white I wonder?

See the problem with government energy policies I'd that they try to interfere with public demand and markets. Why is the Obama admin. setting aside billions of dollars for electric trains? Why should they try and force a product or service that may or may not be demanded by the public? It's up to the consumer to dictate what is successful and what is a failure, not the government. Obama was offering incentives to buy the Chevy Volt and was spending billions on it. Only 60 people have bought a Chevy Volt. Same with the Nissan Leaf. I don't mind having energy independence and that's why I'm for nuclear energy and more drilling. Also, why did Obama release 30 billion barrels of our reserve oil just to lower the price of gas? That was very stupid. Why is Obama supporting Brazil and Venezuela's quest for more oil drilling but shutting down ours in the Gulf? Now other countries are taking oil that was ours.

Nice job of not letting little things like facts get in the way of a mindless rant...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08

See the problem with government energy policies I'd that they try to interfere with public demand and markets. Why is the Obama admin. setting aside billions of dollars for electric trains? Why should they try and force a product or service that may or may not be demanded by the public? It's up to the consumer to dictate what is successful and what is a failure, not the government. Obama was offering incentives to buy the Chevy Volt and was spending billions on it. Only 60 people have bought a Chevy Volt. Same with the Nissan Leaf. I don't mind having energy independence and that's why I'm for nuclear energy and more drilling. Also, why did Obama release 30 billion barrels of our reserve oil just to lower the price of gas? That was very stupid. Why is Obama supporting Brazil and Venezuela's quest for more oil drilling but shutting down ours in the Gulf? Now other countries are taking oil that was ours.

But, given the recent changes and the further shift to come in congress, it's all just dream state stuff now. nobama's only way forward is to continue to try his craven backdoor approach using admin law and regulation to defeat the will of the people.

And coming soon to a congress near you...de-funding of selected activist agencies followed by a blizzard of investigations throughout any second term. How many years before his hair turns completely white I wonder?

Uh, you know it doesn't work if you make-up hate-spawned lies, when the actual policy is posted just above yours. Why do you think anyone cares about the stick you have up your ass about Obama, when we're trying to actually have a conversation about policy and facts?

Do you feel better making pointless posts, just as long as you can use the word "nobama"? The way you cling to that juvenile bumper-sticker pejorative, I'm starting to think that "old army" must refer to a collection of G.I. Joes.

I don't really get your point, but thanks for stalking. Are you my first groupie?

I wasn't trying to make a point - That's why I said "on an unrelated note". It just struck me as odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11Series

Why would ScotchAndCigar repost the link to Obama's energy policy, when the link is already in one of Tortfeasor 335xi's posts on the last page, and one of my posts on the page before?

What is worse, why doesn't someone like you, who claims to be an oil services executive big-wig, ALREADY know where to find Obama's energy policy? Oh that's right, you would rather bitch and moan cluelessly in the dark than actually READ Obama's energy policy.

For the linkie-clickie disabled, here is the overview:

BLUEPRINT FOR A SECURE ENERGY FUTURE

Develop and Secure America’s Energy Supplies
 Expand Safe and Responsible Domestic Oil and Gas Development and
Production
 Lead the World Towards Safer, Cleaner, and More Secure Energy Supplies

Provide Consumers with Choices to Reduce Costs and Save Energy
 Reduce Consumer Costs at the Pump with More Efficient Cars and Trucks
 Cut Energy Bills with More Efficient Homes and Buildings

Innovate Our Way to a Clean Energy Future
 Harness America’s Clean Energy Potential
 Win the future through Clean Energy Research and Development
 Lead by Example: The Federal Government and Clean Energy

I never claimed to be a big shot. You may have inferred that because I am knowledgeable, but I'm pretty much at the bottom.

There is a difference in what his writers have put on paper and what is reality. In REALITY, he has very little interest in natural gas production. In REALITY, he wants to move from our current energy sources to entirely green energy as fast as possible without regard to economic consequences. In REALITY, he wants electric cars(lol), windmills(lol), and solar panels(lol) everywhere right now.

If he had his choice, that's what he would do, but he has been met with pushback, and now he mentions 'natural gas' for his political interests, but does he really have any intention of implementing it on a large scale into our energy plan? No.

I sit in a different seat than you do, and I'm more knowledgeable about it. You have the right to think what you want, but please don't confuse Obama's hope and dreams with what is best for this country (no, not just best for me).

See the problem with government energy policies I'd that they try to interfere with public demand and markets. Why is the Obama admin. setting aside billions of dollars for electric trains? Why should they try and force a product or service that may or may not be demanded by the public? It's up to the consumer to dictate what is successful and what is a failure, not the government. Obama was offering incentives to buy the Chevy Volt and was spending billions on it. Only 60 people have bought a Chevy Volt. Same with the Nissan Leaf. I don't mind having energy independence and that's why I'm for nuclear energy and more drilling. Also, why did Obama release 30 billion barrels of our reserve oil just to lower the price of gas? That was very stupid. Why is Obama supporting Brazil and Venezuela's quest for more oil drilling but shutting down ours in the Gulf? Now other countries are taking oil that was ours.

There have been 3875 leafs (leaves?) sold to date, and there have been 2754 Volts. Very far from your lie about it being only 60.

See the problem with government energy policies I'd that they try to interfere with public demand and markets. Why is the Obama admin. setting aside billions of dollars for electric trains? Why should they try and force a product or service that may or may not be demanded by the public? It's up to the consumer to dictate what is successful and what is a failure, not the government.

Obama didn't invent government incentives; just like the teleprompter, it's been around for decades. Nobody's forcing anything - that's why it's an "incentive".

But you're right - the consumer would like to keep driving Hummers and Excursions until they rename us "Kingdom of American Arabia" and we all choke to death on CO emmisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08

Obama was offering incentives to buy the Chevy Volt and was spending billions on it. Only 60 people have bought a Chevy Volt.

You're just making sh!t up now. Chevy Volt production is just starting up, and whatever they can build will be sold-out for at least the next couple of years. I know someone who is getting one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08

I don't mind having energy independence and that's why I'm for nuclear energy and more drilling.

You and every republican pres candidate, every 4 years. Decades before you were born, there was this thing called "three-mile-island", and they haven't commissioned a powerplant since then. So how come none of these repubs have voted to commission a new powerplant for 35 years, but they keep yapping about nuclear power every 4 years? Well, it's because all the nuclear waste ever generated at all the plants in the US are still sitting there. Nobody wants to dispose of the waste, and there is no plan to do so. So you can be as pro-nuke as you want, it ain't gonna happen, and all those repubs running for pres are lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08

Why is Obama supporting Brazil and Venezuela's quest for more oil drilling but shutting down ours in the Gulf? Now other countries are taking oil that was ours.

Really? Where do you get this from? Fox news? Obama was pro-drilling, despite democrat's objections. Then months worth of oil spewed into the gulf, and all new drilling was stopped. If you're so pro drilling, why aren't you down there helping clean-up? And you do realize that any additional US drilling we could do, would be like pissing into the ocean, right?

In REALITY, he has very little interest in natural gas production. In REALITY, he wants to move from our current energy sources to entirely green energy as fast as possible without regard to economic consequences. In REALITY, he wants electric cars(lol), windmills(lol), and solar panels(lol) everywhere right now.

Again, no. This is just your "projecting" of ideological/political opposition. You need to stop this tactic of painting Obama as stupid, ignorant, and narrow-minded; which in-turn infers that we Obama supporters are the same.

Stick to the reality of what is actually happening, and stop with the "he thinks" and "he wants". I heard 2 years of this crap from the gun-rights people, about how Obama wants to take away everyone's guns; and meanwhile, he's pro-NRA and has never even drafted any gun legislation.

Really? Where do you get this from? Fox news? Obama was pro-drilling, despite democrat's objections. Then months worth of oil spewed into the gulf, and all new drilling was stopped. If you're so pro drilling, why aren't you down there helping clean-up? And you do realize that any additional US drilling we could do, would be like pissing into the ocean, right?

You really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to energy. It's not even worth debating it with you, but you are an easy target so I'll continue to entertain myself I suppose.

Obama is 'pro-drilling' only when it is politically advantageous for him to be 'pro-drilling' (ie. price at the pump relief). You're incredibly naive if you think that Obama really wants to see more drilling long termand see the oil and gas industry continue to grow (a product of more drilling).

I won't even comment on your last sentence about pissing into the ocean. I guess you meant that we can't make much of an impact by continuing to drill in the U.S.?

You really have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to energy.

Really - I have "no idea" - again, you don't know me, don't know what I do-and-don't know, and who the hell made you the judge of what people know? Why do you feel the need to lash out at me, instead of addressing the issue? (I know why, but I'll keep it to myself.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolinp78

It's not even worth debating it with you, but you are an easy target so I'll continue to entertain myself I suppose.

Gee thanks! I'm humbly honored, and I'm obviously so naive that I don't realize that you just insulted me yet again! Boy, are Obama supporters dumb!

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolinp78

Obama is 'pro-drilling' only when it is politically advantageous for him to be 'pro-drilling' (ie. price at the pump relief). You're incredibly naive if you think that Obama really wants to see more drilling long termand see the oil and gas industry continue to grow (a product of more drilling).

Oh, OK, got it... and this is true because.......
....Wait! I just remembered: everything you say is politically-motivated bu!!sh!t. Stick to the facts, thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolinp78

I won't even comment on your last sentence about pissing into the ocean.).

......and then he does......

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolinp78

I guess you meant that we can't make much of an impact by continuing to drill in the U.S.?

....Wait! I just remembered: everything you say is politically-motivated bu!!sh!t. Stick to the facts, thanks.

How is everything that I say politically motivated? I have a political motivation? Being against what Barack Obama stands for is about as far as my political motivation goes, but I care more about the future of the country than who is the president, despite what any Democrat will accuse of a Republican against Obama.

Quote:

......and then he does......

No, I didn't. I asked a question.

Quote:

Yes.

If you would, please explain to me why you think that continuing to drill in the U.S. would be like pissing in the ocean?

When you say "Obama thinks" or "Obama wants", you're not stating a fact, rather you're projecting your political bias on the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolinp78

If you would, please explain to me why you think that continuing to drill in the U.S. would be like pissing in the ocean?

Because the potential increase in oil, years from now, will be a small percentage of a small percentage. Besides, after 6 years of Bush/Cheney presiding over a repub congress, why wouldn't all the possible drilling opportunities already be tapped?